Alternate History The Medes and the Persians invent the Flintlock Musket

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
They weren't. Percussian cap revolvers were. When those came about muskets were becoming rifles. 1853 Enfields and 1861 Springfields had sights accurate to over 5/8 of a mile with "this is going to suck" addressed "to whom it may concern" or "you".
yeah, for a decent firearm you will need rifling and a projectile that conforms to certain aerodynamic requirements.

I think the earliest is the Mine (fun aside, sounds like the Bulgarian word for handjob, and handjob balls I shall call them.)ball, which was at least Napoleonic era and I doubt it will work well for handguns.

Also, early gunpowder was pretty mad, lots of smoke, lots of noise and lots of fouwling up the barrel.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Pikes are about 7lbs lighter than a bayonetted flintlock. It was new tactics which carried the day.

Bayonetted flintlock is shorter than the pike, and is thus worse at countering lancer cavalry.

As for new tactics, infantry square - which was the standard anti-cavalry tactics in the Napoleonic era - existed back in Antiquity.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Bayonetted flintlock is shorter than the pike, and is thus worse at countering lancer cavalry.
Maybe, but it doesn't go boom and shoot pieces of metal and make lots of noise for the horses.

I think that military horses had to get special training to cope with gunfire and the noise that accompanies it.
 

Buba

A total creep
Mine (fun aside, sounds like the Bulgarian word for handjob,
It is Minie
Interesting.
In Polish and Russian it is closer to the word for ... for kissing a girl ... THERE.

Minie ball is 1848. And requires:
a - having the concept of rifling;
b - possession of the ability for mass production of rifled barrels.
Bayonetted flintlock is shorter than the pike, and is thus worse at countering lancer cavalry.
Good enough.
Not that they would be facing charges by winged hussars and their 5m lances. Or even knights with 3m lances held under arm.
This is an era of free-hand lances ...

Formed up, good infantry beats off cavalry almost always.
 
Last edited:

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Maybe, but it doesn't go boom and shoot pieces of metal and make lots of noise for the horses.

I think that military horses had to get special training to cope with gunfire and the noise that accompanies it.

That is actually the precise point I was making: socketed bayonet was useful, but was not the primary defense of infantry squares against cavalry. Primary defense was always firepower. In fact, in pike-and-shot formations, shot protected the pikes from cavalry, while pikes protected the shot from pike infantry.

Good enough.
Not that they would be facing charges by winged hussars and their 5m lances. Or even knights with 3m lances held under arm.
This is an era of free-hand lances ...

Formed up, good infantry beats off cavalry almost always.

Sometimes, sometimes not, though you make a good point that weapons matter. Which is why you see lances being used even during World War I in some cases. But see above: primary defense against cavalry was firepower, not pointy metal bits. And to adapt, cavalry dropped lances and adapted firepower themselves.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
That is actually the precise point I was making: socketed bayonet was useful, but was not the primary defense of infantry squares against cavalry. Primary defense was always firepower. In fact, in pike-and-shot formations, shot protected the pikes from cavalry, while pikes protected the shot from pike infantry.



Sometimes, sometimes not, though you make a good point that weapons matter. Which is why you see lances being used even during World War I in some cases. But see above: primary defense against cavalry was firepower, not pointy metal bits. And to adapt, cavalry dropped lances and adapted firepower themselves.
The most important piece of army kit is the goddamn fucking shovel because you really don't want to be caught by surprise out in the open and attacking a fortified position you can't bypass and starve sucks for everyone involved.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
The most important piece of army kit is the goddamn fucking shovel because you really don't want to be caught by surprise out in the open and attacking a fortified position you can't bypass and starve sucks for everyone involved.

True, but what does that have to do with what we were discussing?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Warfare on the Eurasian landmass will be more akin to Napoleonic Europe than Feudal Europe by the time of Atilla.

So,you aborted feudalism,Attilla and mongols.Which create entire new Europe,with changed History.
I think,that Europe would still dominate world - but,without knight ethos,it would be different Europe.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
An interesting point.
Although Japan was not that far from European feudalism without a mounted warrier class.
Umm ...

The Samurai were originally mounted archers. There's a reason that enormous yumi is asymetrical and a ya is over 3ft long.

That, and Samurai bushido is not that dissimilar from European concept of chivalry. Both codes were basically an attempt at convincing a class of armed brigands to rein themselves in and behave honorably.

Japan during Shogunate era is quite similar to medieval Europe.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
That, and Samurai bushido is not that dissimilar from European concept of chivalry. Both codes were basically an attempt at convincing a class of armed brigands to rein themselves in and behave honorably.

Japan during Shogunate era is quite similar to medieval Europe.
The Samauri were also so very fond of firearms in the early 17th century that Tokugawa Ieyasu pretty much had to ban them just to keep the peace.

If you go looking you can find illustrated drill manuals demonstrating "here's how to use a matchlock musket in the middle of the night":

Strings_for_night_firing.jpg
 

Buba

A total creep
Mao Tse Tung say - "Feudalism sprouts from the barrel of a gun!" - so the Medes/Persians can end up with something similar to their OTL setup even with muskets ...
:p
 

ATP

Well-known member
An interesting point.
Although Japan was not that far from European feudalism without a mounted warrier class.
Well,as @bintananth said,they started as mounted archers.Maybe that is why they do not keep ranged weapons in disdain.
Here,with muskets from the start,i see some kind of tribal democracy replacing Rome - with every german or slavic warrior with its musket.
Europe made from many small Switzerlands?
And state cities,too.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Well,as @bintananth said,they started as mounted archers.Maybe that is why they do not keep ranged weapons in disdain.
Here,with muskets from the start,i see some kind of tribal democracy replacing Rome - with every german or slavic warrior with its musket.
Europe made from many small Switzerlands?
And state cities,too.
The Japanese were the first to design and build an aircraft carrier from scratch: Hōshō

They also pulled off the first naval airstrike in 1914 ... back when the mere idea of using an airplane for anything but "lets go take a look" scouting was a new concept.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The Japanese were the first to design and build an aircraft carrier from scratch: Hōshō

They also pulled off the first naval airstrike in 1914 ... back when the mere idea of using an airplane for anything but "lets go take a look" scouting was a new concept.

To be honest,first who use planes to bomb enemy were italians in Libya/1911/.
And,as a result,was one of two countries/Italy and Russia/ who had real bombers in 1914.
It not helped them in any significiant way,but they were first.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
When Alexander the Great enters the picture
There will be no Alexander the Great.
There will be someone similar to him in terms of ambition, ability, and opportunity.
aborted feudalism,mongols and Attilla with his scenario?
Possible twist, Alexander, Attila or Genghis Khan exist and command horrifically effective barbarian hordes that overrun everything in their path anyway. They're the ones to invent rifling or some kind of ridiculous multi-barreled harmonica or pepperbox monstrosities, giving them more effective guns than everyone else for a while until the technology spread.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Possible twist, Alexander, Attila or Genghis Khan exist and command horrifically effective barbarian hordes that overrun everything in their path anyway. They're the ones to invent rifling or some kind of ridiculous multi-barreled harmonica or pepperbox monstrosities, giving them more effective guns than everyone else for a while until the technology spread.
They'd likely come up with something like the blunderbuss first.

Those had a flared muzzle and sent out a cloud of shot addressed to "everyone downrange" instead of a musket's "to whom it may concern".
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Possible twist, Alexander, Attila or Genghis Khan exist and command horrifically effective barbarian hordes that overrun everything in their path anyway. They're the ones to invent rifling or some kind of ridiculous multi-barreled harmonica or pepperbox monstrosities, giving them more effective guns than everyone else for a while until the technology spread.

I would like to note that invention of the musket pretty much meant the end of effective barbarian hordes, as you needed the state to organize production and supply of weapons, while at the same time the main nomadic stregth - cavalry - became much less effective.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top